restore_shopping_list_items

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but omits any details about side effects, idempotency, error handling, or behavior if items are already present. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the parameter requirement. No wasted words, perfectly concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the primary action and input. However, without annotations, it lacks disclosure of edge cases (e.g., restoring already-present items, invalid IDs) or any confirmation of success. The description is adequate for basic usage but not fully complete for robust agent decision-making.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides a 100% description of the item_ids parameter ('The item_ids the line had before remove_shopping_list_items took it off'), and the description essentially repeats that information. It adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (restore) and the resource (shopping list lines), and explicitly distinguishes it from removal by referencing 'previously removed' items. It implies the inverse of remove_shopping_list_items, making it easy for an agent to differentiate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description conveys when to use it: when restoring items that were previously removed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context of 'previously removed' provides clear usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.